Curse

6am3 Fana71c · Dec 18, 2007, 02:39 AM // 02:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

This is rather true for me, as well--I've been terribly spoiled by this game.

Speaking of other games...One off topic question, if I may:
The title of this thread came from Litany of Curses from PS:Torment, amirite?

Kakumei · Dec 18, 2007, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6am3 Fana71c

Speaking of other games...One off topic question, if I may:
The title of this thread came from Litany of Curses from PS:Torment, amirite?

I have never played Planescape: Torment, so no.

Master Knightfall · Dec 18, 2007, 09:14 PM // 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

Maybe I'm wrong, here, but I'm guessing we're both relatively new to GW based on our respective registration dates. I will, however, state that you simply don't get GW. I've read post after post by you that basically amounts to, "please make GW like every other grind fest slot machine game that's out there so I can grow my ePenis".

If you want a game where allegedly intelligent human beings neglect their real lives so they can have something no one else has for the 15 minutes it takes for another no-life to also win the lottery, there are plenty of games out there for you. I'd wager that most people who play and keep playing GW do so because the game itself is fun and you don't have to sacrifice your entire life to getting some neat gear, and you don't have to worry that the guy who does have the elite hero armor and weapon skin can actually do much more than you with your merely standard max stat gear. There's already quite enough grind in GW as it is to please the people who want to earn something, it doesn't need more, and it certainly doesn't need the sort of garbage I keep seeing you request.

And it doesn't need the garbage that you think it does for sure. But, the develpers are moving in MY direction anyways. There are still plenty of rares that I have that you'll probably never see.

GW2 promises to be more and more of what the hardcore gamer wants afterall GWEN is an example because it ties in with GW2 and there's already goind to be HIGHER LEVELS maybe even NO LIMIT LEVELS as has been mentioned. So, PB you're losing and we're winning. Best just enjoy what you have now, won't get any better for you and has all the best chances of getting better for me and others from other mmorpgs when GW2 comes out.

And yes you are wrong here, you are always wrong here.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Knightfall
GW's needs to add a LOT more LOOT content.

I actually agree with part of this--the variety of mods in GW is somewhat lacking. I wouldn't at all mind seeing new mods.

And see even other people agree with me.

Paddywhack · Dec 18, 2007, 09:49 PM // 21:49

Hi, all. I bought and played Hellgate because I was tired of the same old WoW grind (and fees!) and thought it could capture a bit of that Diablo 2/Titan Quest magic. I was sadly, horribly, tragically wrong. There are so many parts of Hellgate that are so fundamentally broken, it's hard for me to believe that it comes from Bill Roper and company. It almost seems as if Flagship willfully ignored the last 10 years of game design innovation and decided to take a page from Daikatana's playbook instead.

Hellgate has skills and item effects (they're called 'mods' in the game) with no actual explanation as to what they do. Most have been discovered by the players and documented in the official forums, but some skills and effects are a mystery to this day. In fact, the devs themselves have admitted that they have no idea how "Luck" modifiers work in their own game! Would it really have been so hard to make tooltips for this stuff?

Because of the flawed design, putting 1 point in a skill is just as good as 10 since most skills improve with your level anyway. Additionally, items greatly trump skills in effectiveness, so your time is better spent grinding for loot.

The caveat with gear is something called the 'feed system' which is an artificial set of restrictions the designers included on every item in the game. Each item and mod in the game requires a certain amount of 'stat feed' to equip it. A Rifle may take 30 Accuracy and 10 Strength to use. An Armored Vest may take 35 Strength and 15 Willpower. If you only have 60 Strength, then you're short by 5 Strength and can't equip both. On the surface, it sounds like a good balance idea, but the issue is that at later levels you'll have character classes with stats that do not match their concept in order to equip items. You would think that someone that primarily uses a Rifle would need his/her Accuracy to be the highest stat, but you'd be wrong. In Hellgate, it's more common to find high Stamina Rifle users. Why? Who knows?!

Multiplayer is practically nonexistent as you have to fight with the game's interface to group. Even then, the myriad of bugs makes grouping an exercise in frustration.

Why anyone would ever pay $10 a month to play this game is a mystery to me. I can't even find a good reason to play it for free.

The good news is that the Hellgate experience finally got me to purchase Guild Wars! The difference between the two is like night and day in terms of the polish, storyline, and graphical goodness. I'm sorry I've been missing out on all the GW goodness for the past couple of years, but I aim to catch up.

Martin Firestorm · Dec 18, 2007, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

And yes you are wrong here, you are always wrong here.

And see even other people agree with me.

Well yeah, that's how you can tell that you're right and he's wrong.

AuraofMana · Dec 19, 2007, 06:18 AM // 06:18

Quote:

I will not hesitate to say that Guild Wars remains a massively superior game, for all its flaws. Hellgate is, at the moment, up to its ears in bugs, and they've been slow to fix the most pressing ones (memory leaks, party members being invisible, vanishing equipment, broken skills). GW, at its release, looked like the most polished piece of software in history compared to Hellgate's current state. Hellgate has a lot of promise--there's a good bit of fun core gameplay, just the ability to run around, kill shit, watch things fly out--but it's very, very shallow compared to even Guild Wars' pedestrian PvE, and of course, GW's PvP wins by default since, you know, Hellgate doesn't even really have any yet, but the bit of dueling I've done hasn't seemed much fun at all--not even on the scale of Random Arena.

I do think that Guild Wars could take a couple design lessons--namely, achievement and quest rewards--but in a lot of ways, Hellgate seems like a big step backward, for all its mindless fun.

Do I need to remind everyone that gears + high level cap + killing stuff all over the place are the essence of fun?
That was what made D2 awesome, and HG:L is a real spiritual successor of that concept:
~In D2, max level = 99
~In D2, gears make the character. There are A LOT of gears (due to random mod generator) and the majority of the time is spend on MFing.
~D2 is a hack-and-slash, just like HG:L. That is not GW. Yes, the concept of killing A LOT OF STUFF in a short amount of time might sound boring on paper, but here are 2 examples:
-Dynasty Warriors, it draws almost 0 lores from the real story, repetitive boring play, and you don't even have levels. It is one of the more popular games out there.
-Dota in WC3, crappy designed concept of the map, heroes, and +stat items. It is the most popular game on WC3. It even got in some of the WCGs in Asia.

GW is NOT a hack-and-slash. In fact, it's completely different than all the MMOs out there when it first began. Now, endless boring grinding titles has taken over and has made it even less fun than grinding levels on D2 (yes, I realize they are optional, and so are levels so the comparison stands).
GW2 sounds more akin to D2 than GW1 (actually more akin to WOW). Why? Because only a game with grind can keep its players. Realize how the titles were realized after GW died down a bit?

HG:L is not a MMORPG, it is a RPG that you can play online. GW is a MMORPG because you can only play online. GW is team based, HG:L is more geared toward solo play (which is prominent in hack-and-slash genres).

Quote:

The quests themselves are standard MMO variety--kill X, retrieve X items from monsters, find X NPC, et cetera.

That is a standard quest variants on any RPG. Most MMORPGs don't have interesting variants of those. Look for RPGs like all of the Forgotten Realms series, Elder Scroll series (which the game is actually about as big as a MMORPG), ect. They have good quests. D2 and HG:L do not have interesting quests (although HG:L tried to offer some and does better than D2 in this). Quests are not the focus of these games. Killing massive monsters in a short amount of time while picking up some phat lewtz is. HG:L did not pertain the level grind in D2 (which is not hard if you do baal runs/uber runs, ect.). Notice how GW2 is going for a higher level cap. I actually don't find the missions and quests in GW any special than any MMORPGs or RPGs out there. In fact, I preferred it if I can skip over most of them like in Prophecies, but that's just me. You are entitled to your own separate opinion.

Quote:

A vast majority of the skills are relatively worthless--people in GW, especially high-end PvPers, tend to complain about the small pool of useful skills, but that pool is much, much smaller in Hellgate.

That was how D2 worked. They mended it a bit with Synergies, but still, small arrays of skills. Why? Because specializing makes you superior. In GW, you have the same thing, except the ONLY difference is your ability to completely "reroll" your character in town. 8 skills is still a small pool to pull from. The rerolling factor is great idea. However, you don't need it in D2 or HG:L. Usually, your skills are enough to take down most monsters.

Quote:

Also, the skill animations leave...something to be desired. They're all rather basic, uninspired, and not flashy at all--even something like the Elementalist's Meteor Shower produces more 'oohs' and 'aahs' than the majority of the Evoker's skills.

I agree that in a hack-and-slash, some good animation would be great since you'll be using some of the skills forever over and over again, but it's not that important since I'll be paying more attention to blood and brain matters spewing all over the place as I kill my monsters and get my loots. That is the focus and the fun of hack-and-slash, and that is why it is popular.

Quote:

Now, my biggest gripe: gear. Hellgate is a very, very gear-based game, like pretty much every RPG other than Guild Wars.

Yes indeed, Dota and D2 are both gear oriented, and like you said, almost all RPGs have that as well. People prefer that more. "It takes no skills!" you say? PvP has never been a focus of those games.

Quote:

The armor designs are awful. All of them. My Marskman looks awful in her best gear, and it has absolutely none of the intricacy or detail of the design that the Guild Wars armor has.

Most people rather prefer if their armor actually do things instead of looking cooler but has no benefit beyond the normal armors.

Quote:

Difficulty levels--much like GW's Hard Mode, you have the option to replay the story in Nightmare mode once you've completed the storyline, making all of the monsters radically higher-level and much, much more difficult. Does it really add replayability? I suppose, though those far I haven't tried it much--I've been, instead, making new characters to play through Normal mode.

Unless you are one of those nuts that try to get all HM mishs on all your characters, you are doing the same thing in GW. The only reason why GW doesn't feel like that is because you only have so many characters and the game takes forever to "beat".

Quote:

Personally, I am of the opinion that Guild Wars should adopt a similar system for titles--allow completion to award you with cosmetic rewards, like armor, or weapons, or whatever--I know they're doing this with the Hall of Monuments and GW2, but really, why didn't they instate this in the first place?

Personally, I rather GW have a higher level cap since it's going to be grinding either way. Elite gears look pretty good right now too. That's just my opinion, you don't have to share it. We all have our preferences.

Quote:

Hellgate has a lot of promise--there's a good bit of fun core gameplay, just the ability to run around, kill shit, watch things fly out--but it's very, very shallow compared to even Guild Wars' pedestrian PvE

That's because the focus is killing monsters and getting loot. Most players won't even bother with quests and zip through them. That was what happened with D2.

Quote:

GW's PvP wins by default since, you know, Hellgate doesn't even really have any yet, but the bit of dueling I've done hasn't seemed much fun at all--not even on the scale of Random Arena.

Again, the focus is not on PvP. PvP on D2 has always been somewhat of a bore to most players (then again, most GW'ers don't play PvP much). The PvP got worse when Enigma was released on D2.

Quote:

Hellgate seems like a big step backward, for all its mindless fun.

It followed the tradition of D2. It didn't take any step backward, it merely treaded along. GW diverted from the fundamental concepts of D2, and that's fine. It didn't expand on the fundamental concepts of D2 (okay title grinds is worse than level grinding), it diverted from it and became PvP based instead of farming based (which many would argue as the more important part of PvE, which is composed of both quests and farming).

Quote:

However, GW and Hellgate are definitely cut from the same mold, and as such, a comparison thread is actually viable, and this is what I am going to discuss today.

My entire point is that HG:L and GW are even more different games than WOW and GW. GW draws on some of the lesser used concepts in D2 (like PvP) while HG:L expanded the fundamental hack-and-slash concepts of D2. WOW drew some part from D2 as well in the set items, ect. that was pretty unique to D2 in its time. WOW still have the level grind and gear based, but it also added more PvP and quests (+ loads of other stuff). So in the end, GW is not even close to D2 (and thus HG:L) anymore.
Blizzard is currently working on a 3rd unannounced project by "Team 3". Many speculate it to be D3, since, well, you got WOW exp and SC2, what else is left? Blizzard has leaked that it is a MMORPG, which makes the claim stronger. I, for one, will look forward to it since Blizzard has never disappointed me with any of its games. If Blizzard is making SC2, it is not farfetch'd that it is making D3.

Bryant Again · Dec 19, 2007, 06:33 AM // 06:33

First off, cool post Aura.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

HG:L is not a MMORPG, it is a RPG that you can play online. GW is a MMORPG because you can only play online. GW is team based, HG:L is more geared toward solo play (which is prominent in hack-and-slash genres).

Just curious as to how that makes GW an MMO? Would you consider Diablo or Hellgate MMOs if it could only be played online?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

I agree that in a hack-and-slash, some good animation would be great since you'll be using some of the skills forever over and over again, but it's not that important since I'll be paying more attention to blood and brain matters spewing all over the place as I kill my monsters and get my loots. That is the focus and the fun of hack-and-slash, and that is why it is popular.

True enough, that actually happened to me the other day. I was looking at the way he walked then I got ambushed (well it felt like it, I was just not paying attention.)

And what is DOTA an abbreviation for? OH nevermind I know what you're talking about, I got lost in one for about 3 hours the other day. Go go Demon Hunter!

wetsparks · Dec 19, 2007, 08:08 AM // 08:08

I consider any game that is completely online an MMO, after is stands for Massive Multiplayer Online then from there weather it is cooperative role playing game (Guild Wars), action role playing game or just role playing game doesn't really matter as those are sub-genres.

Bryant Again · Dec 19, 2007, 08:37 AM // 08:37

What if it's something like Counter-Strike, then? MMOFPS?

artay · Dec 19, 2007, 10:14 AM // 10:14

yes? there could be a million names for genres of games. I don't know why people are so hung up about guild wars not being an mmo,(they debated it on mmorpg.com for years) Its a game, and it's online, what more do people want?

I'm also aware that arena net have stated that guild wars is a corpg.

Irish Ranger · Dec 19, 2007, 11:48 AM // 11:48

I've tried it out. I really got into the hype before the game was released. But what a disappointment. I think it doesn't come near to GW to be fair. I'm not a GW or die by any means. I agree with making finishing the game a bit more special and giving better rewards for some side-quests/primary. I mean as a level 20 player sometimes the idea of taking a quest off someone for 500 exp 100gold just isn't appealing. And sometimes you can't escape the 12yo's shouting noob and mother insults in text chat every minute in pvp.

I've played WoW for a few months too. I loved Warcraft 3 and wanted to play WoW. I was playing WoW and GW at the same time for a while. But i always came back to GW due to the fun factor/not having to pay money a month (no game is worth that) and i don't care what anyone says but GW graphics are miles ahead of WoW. If the whole disney cartoony thing is for you then fair enough but just look at the animation on a hunter shooting a bow and compare it to a ranger shooting a bow for example. The animation in WoW looks from a NES game.

I think we all stick with GW for our own different reasons. Let's hope GW2 can live up to our expectations and reward all the loyal fans as well as winning over millions more.

~ Dan ~ · Dec 19, 2007, 01:08 PM // 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Ranger

I've tried it out. I really got into the hype before the game was released. But what a disappointment. I think it doesn't come near to GW to be fair.

I think that depends what you want from a game. The first PC game i properly played was D2, and so i'd probably stick with HG:L when i try it as the style appeals to me more.

One question i do have though: I know that you can play for free or subscribe, and that subscribers get any new content released. Does this refer to patches? So say if i'm playing for free and suddenly they patch it with tons of bug fixes.. do i get it?

Thanks in advance.

Kakumei · Dec 19, 2007, 01:47 PM // 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

Do I need to remind everyone that gears + high level cap + killing stuff all over the place are the essence of fun?

Apparently, you do, as that's certainly not the case for anyone--some people enjoy some depth to their gameplay, sometimes.

Quote:

GW is NOT a hack-and-slash.

I beg to differ--GW (PvE, anyway) is very much a hack-and-slash, albeit team-based.

Quote:

HG:L is not a MMORPG, it is a RPG that you can play online. GW is a MMORPG because you can only play online.

Online only is not the sole criterion of an MMO. That first M stands for 'Massively', which neither GW nor HG:L are.

Quote:

That is a standard quest variants on any RPG. Most MMORPGs don't have interesting variants of those.

Unfortunately true.

Quote:

Yes indeed, Dota and D2 are both gear oriented, and like you said, almost all RPGs have that as well. People prefer that more. "It takes no skills!" you say? PvP has never been a focus of those games.

It is possible, albeit uncommon, to have skill-oriented PvE. It's just not very often seen in the RPG genre, unfortunately.

Quote:

Most people rather prefer if their armor actually do things instead of looking cooler but has no benefit beyond the normal armors.

What does that have to do with anything? All I was criticizing there was their armor art, which is pisspoor in comparison to GW.

Quote:

Unless you are one of those nuts that try to get all HM mishs on all your characters, you are doing the same thing in GW. The only reason why GW doesn't feel like that is because you only have so many characters and the game takes forever to "beat".

GW takes forever to beat? It took me much longer to beat HG:L the first time than Prophecies did--and let's not even mention Factions or Eye of the North.

Quote:

(okay title grinds is worse than level grinding)

How is this remotely true? Titles are completely, entirely, one hundred percent optional (save for the sole example of Sunspear, for Nightfall-born characters). Levels are most certainly not optional--sorry, you aren't strong enough to pass this point in the game yet, go kill ten thousand more rats.

Quote:

My entire point is that HG:L and GW are even more different games than WOW and GW.

Then your entire point is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan-the-noob

One question i do have though: I know that you can play for free or subscribe, and that subscribers get any new content released. Does this refer to patches? So say if i'm playing for free and suddenly they patch it with tons of bug fixes.. do i get it?

Thanks in advance.

All players get bugfixes, thank the heavens. But yes, as you stated, only subscribers get the 'new content', whatever that might turn out to be.

AuraofMana · Dec 19, 2007, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Apparently, you do, as that's certainly not the case for anyone--some people enjoy some depth to their gameplay, sometimes.

The overwhelming majority finds that to be more fun, and that is why there are more WOW players than GW, more Dota players on War3 than any other custom games (and probably ladder as well), and do I need to remind everyone that someone hit level 99 THREE days after D2 restarted its latest ladder after all these years.

Quote:

I beg to differ--GW (PvE, anyway) is very much a hack-and-slash, albeit team-based.

Look at hack-and-slash. GW is not a hack-and-slash. Hack-and-slash has always been solo based, and GW is anything but that (even though the excessive uses of hench and heroes make it seem that way, which is something bad).

Quote:

Online only is not the sole criterion of an MMO. That first M stands for 'Massively', which neither GW nor HG:L are.

Again, look at the definition. Hell, I know a lot of strategy games that doesn't take strategy. It's a genre classification, not a definition of the game. HG:L is a RPG with online functions, GW is a MMORPG.

Quote:

GW takes forever to beat? It took me much longer to beat HG:L the first time than Prophecies did--and let's not even mention Factions or Eye of the North.

I can get ran in Prophecies and beat it fast too, but that's not beating, that's speed running. You see, in games like HG:L, people don't need to take 20 hrs to get a group because they can just solo everything that comes their way (a define point for a hack-and-slash). Even if you choose to hench in GW (heroes didn't exist in Prophecies), it'll take you a while to beat the entire game normally. Because GW is a MMORPG, there are other players to offer help and various runs to make it seem shorter. You can do the same thing if you play HG:L online. However, if you play through both normally without outside help (probably even with a pug in GW, which will probably slow any decent player down), HG:L is completed before GW.

Quote:

How is this remotely true? Titles are completely, entirely, one hundred percent optional (save for the sole example of Sunspear, for Nightfall-born characters). Levels are most certainly not optional--sorry, you aren't strong enough to pass this point in the game yet, go kill ten thousand more rats.

Here is another point. Your character can be overpowered by the sheer amount of gears you have, and thus, 1 or 2 level doesn't matter as much as in HG:L (plus the fact that HG:L has a higher level cap). In GW, a level or 2 off could mean that you won't even get accepted by most pugs, which drags you down. And another thing, most titles take FOREVER to grind, and that is the ONLY THING to do after you played through the game enough time. However, that is NOT the case in games like HG:L because of the random mod generator. Why do you think D2 is still being played by all these players today? Because of its gears. Call it pathetic, but most GW'ers are doing the same thing, except with titles, which doesn't even add that much to your character as opposed to gear. Those people want to grind it, and that's completely fine. This is not to mention not all titles can't be completed while you play through normally (even those that does you won't get much). XP happens whenever you do a quest or kill a monster. In fact, most D2 players powerlevel to around 75 and starts farming. By the time they gotten some good loots, they'll hit 90+. In GW, you'll hit 20 before you even beat the game. The only thing to further power you is elite skills (if you haven't gotten max weapons and armors by now, something is wrong). It is the whole character development difference between HG:L and GW that propels the difference. Gears don't make a character in GW, your skill build does. HG:L skill builds also define a person, but gears are a vital part (unless you a caster type, you won't get hurt by gear as much, but still significant).

Quote:

Then your entire point is wrong.

You can say it takes no skills to be defined by gear and I'll repeat once again, PvP was never the focus. In DOTA, players argue that the ability to farm and level quickly is a skill all to its own and that is what propels DOTA - the ability to survive, make good cash by landing last hits on creeps, and kill heroes. Farming (a vital part of PvE by many) defines HG:L and D2 while GW is more PvP geared (thus why Anet called it CORPG, get it now?). It's 2 completely different game you are talking about here. It's like comparing D2 with BG2, where in as BG2 is more lore/quest driven (all DND games are), party based, and has a way more interesting storyline to it. However, D2 has its own goodies that makes it stand out. Just because they are both RPGs (MMORPGs are a type of RPGs) doesn't mean you can compare them.

Quote:

All players get bugfixes, thank the heavens. But yes, as you stated, only subscribers get the 'new content', whatever that might turn out to be.

Stuff like sockets and other new features. For anyone that isn't aware of sockets, having a socket on an item means you can stick stuff in it. That was one of the unique thing in D2. Yes, GW drew from that and allowed you to put runes (and eventually insignia) on your armor. Yes, GW drew a significant amount from D2, and there is nothing wrong with that, D2 is a great game. GW just didn't draw from the fundamental concepts like HG:L did, which was the entire argument of my point of why they can't be compared. Why did you think they left Blizzard? If they drew from the fundamental part of D2, they'd just stayed in Blizzard. As in the latest interview, they stated "...we were doing something radically different...", aka, no high level cap/farm based MMORPG (ignore the part where they are going back to that in GW2). high level cap/farm based defines D2 and HG:L, not GW.

Quote:

And sometimes you can't escape the 12yo's shouting noob and mother insults in text chat every minute in pvp.

Sorry, that is going to be every single game that has an online feature you'll ever play. Most people I know realize the world is doomed by playing video games.

Quote:

i don't care what anyone says but GW graphics are miles ahead of WoW. If the whole disney cartoony thing is for you then fair enough but just look at the animation on a hunter shooting a bow and compare it to a ranger shooting a bow for example. The animation in WoW looks from a NES game.

Blizzard has never went for realism, instead they went for the comical/fantasy look. GW is not realism either, as stated in the latest interview, but yes, it is closer than WOW. If you want realistic graphic, go play DND. Another factor comes into play with the WOW thing as well: Blizzard's games have always aimed for lower -> medium spec PCs. AKA, you can probably play the game on at least low setting with a graphic card that came with your PC. For GW, you probably have to go buy a video card. Both have their strong points. I like some GW armors, but I prefer WOW armors more because they are shiny (and we all know shiny objects > all).

Quote:

Just curious as to how that makes GW an MMO? Would you consider Diablo or Hellgate MMOs if it could only be played online?

Yes, if D2 and/or HG:L were online only, I'd consider it a MMORPG. Look at any game-oriented websites, GW would be classified as a MMORPG while D2 and HG:L would not be. Look at the latest interview, the author even said GW was a MMORPG. Whether that is not Anet's true definition is up for debate. Yes, Anet has said GW is not a MMORPG but a CORPG. Ironically, GW is probably one of the most team-oriented MMORPGs out there. PvP has also been the focus of GW (look at the complains of people around the forum of "separate skills in PvE and PvP". Although PvP has been rather stale for a while and the balancing issue is just too disgusting to touch on.

Paddywhack · Dec 19, 2007, 09:08 PM // 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan-the-noob

One question i do have though: I know that you can play for free or subscribe, and that subscribers get any new content released. Does this refer to patches? So say if i'm playing for free and suddenly they patch it with tons of bug fixes.. do i get it?

Thanks in advance.

Subscribers and non-subscribers get the same multiplayer patches at the same time. Flagship has stated that bug fixes and tweaks will always go out at no cost to everyone. Non-subscribers will just not have access to subscriber only content.

However, singleplayer users are (at this time and the forseeable future) out of luck. The devs have said that they will patch the singleplayer gamers soon, but that hasn't happened yet. There are a number of critical bugs in the singleplayer game to include broken quests that can completely halt your quest progress.

Since singleplayer users generate no income for Flagship, and they have less chance of converting to multiplayer subscribers, I can sort of understand why it's not a focus for the devs. I don't agree with it, but I do understand the economic reasons behind their decision.

Overall, the game just isn't done yet, IMO.

Bryant Again · Dec 19, 2007, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

Again, look at the definition. Hell, I know a lot of strategy games that doesn't take strategy. It's a genre classification, not a definition of the game. HG:L is a RPG with online functions, GW is a MMORPG.

When you compare GW to every other MMO out there, you will find that it has little in common with any of them: No endgame, no "powerful" weapons or armor, and an easy level cap. GW lacks a lot of things that MMO players love the most.

In that sense GW is not an MMO. Due to that, MMO is indeed a game genre definition. If it was classification, Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike are MMO's, as well.

wetsparks · Dec 19, 2007, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddywhack

Subscribers and non-subscribers get the same multiplayer patches at the same time. Flagship has stated that bug fixes and tweaks will always go out at no cost to everyone. Non-subscribers will just not have access to subscriber only content.

However, singleplayer users are (at this time and the forseeable future) out of luck. The devs have said that they will patch the singleplayer gamers soon, but that hasn't happened yet. There are a number of critical bugs in the singleplayer game to include broken quests that can completely halt your quest progress.

Since singleplayer users generate no income for Flagship, and they have less chance of converting to multiplayer subscribers, I can sort of understand why it's not a focus for the devs. I don't agree with it, but I do understand the economic reasons behind their decision.

Overall, the game just isn't done yet, IMO.

They released a single player patch yesterday. If you think about it though, the single player game may not make them more money like subscriptions do, but it also doesn't cost them money from people playing online without the subscription.

As to what subscribers get compared to non-subscribers, everyone gets bug fixes and balances, but subscribers gets towns, quests, and explorable areas not available to non-subscribers. They have in the test center right now the first of these areas, Stonehenge, that only subscribing accounts can access. Since I am not a subscriber I can't tell you what is there, but if you go to a fan site I'm sure you can find out.

Harmless · Dec 19, 2007, 09:37 PM // 21:37

I really like the variety of weapons in hellgate and the many ways they can be modded. I also like the fact that armor drops for you.

The variety of summons that the summoner can use is very nice. I also like the fact that they live longer and you don't need a dead body around to be able to summon.

For most quests, I can just call up my 4 or 5 summons and do just fine without help. The fact that it scales the difficulty with the number of players helps with soloing.

I also like the way you can combine items to make a minipet and such. That's fun.

On the downside, the environment is very repetitious, I never have enough storage space, and the graphics aren't near as nice as guildwars. And I can't get it to play windowed for me.

Paddywhack · Dec 19, 2007, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

They released a single player patch yesterday. If you think about it though, the single player game may not make them more money like subscriptions do, but it also doesn't cost them money from people playing online without the subscription.

It's about time for the singleplayer crowd to get a little consideration. Thanks for the info. I honestly don't know what they're doing anymore since I shelved the game.

Edit: Technically they would cost them some money for the support issues. The MP and SP executables are separate (which is why their release schedules are so different) and Flagship has to pay their people to work on the SP patch as well as the MP one.

wetsparks · Dec 19, 2007, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Flagship Studios realized that people found some of the tile sets very similar and has promised more of them in either .7 (coming out this week) or 1.0 (coming out late this month or early January).

Also I never had problems with storage, most of the stuff I can't wear and isn't valuable to the merchant so I just break it down to upgrade components so I can update my weapon or armor. Speaking of armor, I have a marksmen and I have to spec into strength a lot to be able to wear any kind of decent armor. They really need to work on that as a marksmen shouldn't have to worry about strength but I don't think it is high on FSS priority list at the moment.

And your welcome Paddywhack.